Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 8 replies
  • Subscribers 5 subscribers
  • Views 10568 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

UTM 9 Bug with MLPPP!!

JohnRiley

I posted this issue previously with no responses, so I did some further testing.

Scenario:  UTM 9 with 3 (5M DL, 800k UL)External DSL modems bridged with MLPPP supported at the carrier.

A) If I use 2 modem, I get 8.5M Download, and about 1.2M Upload - Yes, with PPPoE overhead etc. this is fine.

B) If I use 3 modems, I get 12.5M Down (This is FINE), but barely 1.1M Upload!!    Yes, Upload speed is actually SLOWER with 3 links vs 2.

I checked all UTM configs.  Never had QoS or any throttling turned on.  But also turned off ALL FW features and Advanced protection feautures, and yes rebooted firewall - same thing.

I have just turned up a Cisco router (2811) with 3 DSL interfaces just to test - PERFECT.  12.5 down, and 2m up.  Just what it should be.

This looks to be a bug?  Thoughts anyone??  Would REALLY like to go back using this product, but next step will be de-installing it and installing pfSense if this can't be fixed fast.

Thanks
John.



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0

    To add fuel to the fire - a brand new UTM 9 installation with no features turned on (just in case there was a lingering config) gave NO joy.

    I installed pfSense,  10 minutes later it's up and working perfectly with MLPPP - Full DL and UL speeds.

    This is definitely a bug with UTM 9

  • 0 in reply to JohnRiley

    Not sure how all this is connected to the UTM, but it doesn't support MLPPP. It can only deal with a WAN connection on a single NIC or VLAN, so there must be an issue outside its control.

    Cheers - Bob

  • 0 in reply to BAlfson

    Um, UTM 9 certainly does support MLPPP.  It's in the advanced menu under the pppoe imterface.  Been using it for months.

  • 0 in reply to JohnRiley

    Cool - that's new!  I must have missed that in the explanation of changes at some point.  Or,  is this V9.4?

    Still, I never use "recent mprovements" for solutions for my clients.  Network Range objects have been available for two years, but I'm not using them anywhere yet.

    Cheers - Bob

  • 0 in reply to BAlfson

    I was on 9.3, from what I understand - this came out in 9.1.

    Although the Sophos implementation of MLPPP is one of the poorest I've seen (Yes, even worse than Tomato!)  

    I've since had to kill UTM and go back to pfsense.

    No reply on the forums, and no reply from Sophos themselves.   Obviously don't really care about this feature.

    Probably my last post anyway, since I'm on pfsense now and it's working great.

    Cheers
    j

Reply
  • 0 in reply to BAlfson

    I was on 9.3, from what I understand - this came out in 9.1.

    Although the Sophos implementation of MLPPP is one of the poorest I've seen (Yes, even worse than Tomato!)  

    I've since had to kill UTM and go back to pfsense.

    No reply on the forums, and no reply from Sophos themselves.   Obviously don't really care about this feature.

    Probably my last post anyway, since I'm on pfsense now and it's working great.

    Cheers
    j

Children